The nation is therefore key to political organisation. Liberal nationalism has followed the political nationalist agenda of seeking national self-determination and thus the creation of a nation-state. The ultimate goal of liberal nationalism is a world of independent nation-states. All nations are seen to have an equal right to freedom and self-determination. For Woodrow Wilson, only a democratic republic could be a genuine nation-state.
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
Thucydides does not directly support the argument of the “classical model of politics” but his views of Political Realism sort of allude to it. If a government’s main motivation is just for power and it does not care at all about how ethical it is, there is a good chance it will end up becoming corrupt, as the “classical model of politics” suggests. Plato, in The Republic, argues that all of the political systems (democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and timarchy) are inherently corrupt, and that the state should be governed by an elite class of educated philosophical-rulers, who would be trained from birth and selected on the basis of skill, as Plato describes: “those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community.” Plato also advocates, in The Republic, the abolishment of private property and the family among the ruling classes. This has caused many people to say that he was a communist, but many political scholars disregard this view, saying that the text implies that this will only extend to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens “will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern.” Essentially, Plato’s view goes along with the “classical model of politics” I mentioned above. He believes there are a number of different forms of government and he says that they are all inherently corrupt, which implies that, as mentioned above, each form
Is utilitarianism too demanding? Utilitarianism in its most basic form directs moral agents to maximise the aggregate welfare and to do what produces the greatest benefit for all moral agents. The utilitarian theory is susceptible to various objections; this essay will focus on the issue of unrealistic demands. I will argue that utilitarianism is too demanding as it implies that we must always act in order to maximize happiness. This is a strict requirement, as it demands too much from individuals to always be motivated to promote the general happiness.
This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second
Everyone can agree that men are not perfect. They form governments to protect themselves from one another. These governments can take many forms, ranging from a monarchy to a pure democracy. If we make the assumption that all men are created “equal”, then a democracy is the logical alternative since a monarch could not be an equal. But, pure democracy, where everyone weighs in on every issue, becomes impractical as societies become larger, more complex, and replete with issues.
We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of
It is necessary for it to be elastic. While the clause may allow, perhaps, small, technical violations of the principles of the Revolution, it is for the greater good of the Union. The clause essentially establishes that the pursuit of harmony between order and liberty is not unconstitutional. Staying completely true to Republican ideals is impossible, and will only cause greater problems, like complete anarchy. The means justify virtuous ends.
Another evidence that supports Thoreau’s belief of the government is the government’s power itself. Thoreau believed that way the government obtains its power is from the majority which is the strongest group, and because they are stronger they when because of their power, not moral or best solutions. He goes on to say people should put what they morally think is right before what the law says. Though the government is powerful, Thoreau believed that they are not ethically right in which they should govern. Another example of Thoreau’s beliefs is his opinion on the duty’s of the individual.